Not having a player who could help us, i.e. a centre, a goal scorer on the 2nd line, a right hand defenseman with some offense to his game instead of a starting goalie with a big contract sitting on the bench.

What dude said - and the fact that it's been a topic of conversation for almost a year. Do you really want to have the issue of 'who domtheynplay next game?' If Schneids has a slightly sloppy game in the playoffs?

Not having a player who could help us, i.e. a centre, a goal scorer on the 2nd line, a right hand defenseman with some offense to his game instead of a starting goalie with a big contract sitting on the bench.

What dude said - and the fact that it's been a topic of conversation for almost a year. Do you really want to have the issue of 'who domtheynplay next game?' If Schneids has a slightly sloppy game in the playoffs?

I want that option if he does shat the bed yeah.Just to be clear here, I'm not saying we should trade Luongo as soon as profitable. I'm saying the idea that having Luongo on the roster is a circus and luggage eyes should fall over himself to trade Luongo because of it is crap.

Just throwing this out there but what if the Nucks were to say that they will cover $1M of the cap which can now be traded. Not the best thing to do since it will stick with the team for 12 years or until he retires.

Reefer2 wrote:Just throwing this out there but what if the Nucks were to say that they will cover $1M of the cap which can now be traded. Not the best thing to do since it will stick with the team for 12 years or until he retires.

Will this increase interest and hopefully the return for him?

I should hope so. Luongo at $4.3m on the cap (and about $5.439m in real money for the next few years) would be a ridiculously good deal. For those worried about outstanding liability it would take a team from owing Lou over $33m to down around $27m.

This is thoroughly into crazy-like-a-fox (or just crazy as a shithouse rat) territory but if it did drive up the bidding for Luongo significantly it would be interesting to see the Canucks try something like this.

If we have an eight year CBA with a pretty much guaranteed 5% kicker from year 3 on (which the players have taken without fail every single time so far) then after a rough first year that $1m of dead cap space is going to cost you less than 1.5% of the cap every year.

I still think it'd take a pretty compelling return to make that worthwhile but if you're getting the kind of player back who can be a firstliner and whose contract situation you can keep on top of and keep getting extra value from it could be worthwhile.

Of course the actual likelihood of it happening is so low that I've pretty much just wasted the time I spent thinking about this post.